News
Posted on: August 1, 2016
0
Engaging the Safety
I’ve seen several articles on the subject of when and if the safety of a rifle should be engage. Much of this debate is centered around the reload and malfunctions process. At times the discussion can be very vigorous and heated. Unfortunately, some instructors also will call into the credibility of other instructors for opposing their viewpoint. Of course, if someone is advocating a technique that is not safe, then it should be questioned. But, in some instances I think we are splitting hairs. I have a slightly different take on the issue. I will say right up front, however, that I do not advocate running around with your safety off.
When Should the Safety Be Engaged?
Whenever we do not have the weapon properly referenced towards a target that we intend to engage, right? That is the core safety rule that we teach students and strive for and at the fundamental level, we rigidly enforce that the safety is not disengaged until the sights enter a target you intend to shoot and it is re-engaged before the weapon is lowered.
There are, of course, points in the training progression that hard rules soften a bit. Not to say they go away completely, but understanding their importance and application we will modify them for a specific end state. For instance, if you have shaved all the possible efficiency out of your target acquisition and discrimination, weapons presentation, etc. AND you can demonstrate safety and awareness. At this time, it may be that we start sweeping the safety as the weapon is presented and we prep the trigger. Of course, we are still aware of our surroundings and the implications of our actions.
We may also not re-engage the safety between multiple targets. During CQB, the safety is not re-engaged after the first threat engagement until the room is clear. We also only attempt to sweep the safety during a rifle to pistol transition, unless you are actually going to clear that Failure to Fire malfunction before getting your pistol out.
On the other side, there are some that think they are saving time in a CQB environment by keeping their weapon OFF safe. Big nope right there. You are actually saving 0 tenths of a second and increasing your risks by an order of magnitude. This is because it takes you longer to DECIDE (target discrimination) to shoot than it does for you to apply pressure to the safety that your thumb is already on. You have more than adequate time to sweep the safety between deciding TO shoot and then deciding WHERE the proper point of aim is. So, to be real clear here- at no point of this article do I advocate moving around with your weapon off safe- other than AFTER engaging a target in a room while moving to a point of domination or while closing on the target. After which, the weapon goes back on safe.
But, wait, isn’t that a lot of contradictions? Isn’t our application of the safety supposed to be an automatic response? I think this issue gets confusing because the application of the safety is tied to the wrong sequence of training.
Skills in Context
Most of the time the use of the safety is grouped with standard weapons manipulation drills, and rightfully so. When we take new students, it is imperative for them to not disengage the safety before they see their sights on a target they wish to engage. It is equally important for them to re-engage the safety BEFORE they begin to lower the weapon. If these standards aren’t rigidly enforced, then training can quickly become dangerous. But, what about malfunctions?
Engaging the safety during the reload and malfunction process is a heated topic. Let’s break this down a little. For each action we train- we expect a result- which aids us towards an end state, right? Question- how many malfunctions have you had where you CAN place your weapon on fire? Does the application of the safety aid you in the troubleshooting process? The true answer to these questions does not support the rigid answer of “we must apply it all the time”. Most emotional responses along these line fall back to this without better explanation, why do you think that is? Because we are attempting to push a task that isn’t taught in proper context. Let’s talk about the context a little:
Up front, I teach that it is not necessary to re-engage the safety during a reload or malfunctions correction, AS LONG AS: you intend to re-engage the target, the weapon is kept oriented towards the target, AND you can control the weapon. Why do I do this? Because I tie actions to end states. Let’s look at a couple of hypotheticals for a moment:
First one: I’ve entered a room as part of a CQB situation. The room is large and there is a hostile at my point of domination. While moving down the wall, I fire one round then get a click/ no bang. I am not carrying a pistol. The subject falls and begins to stand back up. I increase my speed towards him while correcting the stoppage with the intent of either shooting him again or beating him to death with my rifle if I reach him first.
Does my rifle need to go on safe? Why? When you look at the scenario, was the application of the safety necessary? I would say no, it isn’t. Now that mental calculus would change if I had a pistol- at which point I would attempt to sweep the safety before dropping or guiding the rifle to hang.
Second one: I am engaging a hostile target from a covered position. While exposed to engage, I incur a malfunction. I pull myself back into cover and correct the stoppage. I then re-expose myself to continue engaging.
Does my rifle need to go on safe? Why? I would say that you should attempt to apply the safety before you pull yourself into cover.
What is the difference between these two situations that elicits a different response? THE ENDSTATE. While I intended to re-engage in both scenarios, I was not able to keep the weapon oriented towards the target in the second scenario. This is because in the first scenario, I was involved in the CONTINUOUS act of engaging a hostile- even though I was working through a stoppage (or reload). In the second situation, I was no longer in a continuous act of engagement- I moved to a covered position to work through the issue.
Reloads
But what about reloads? In my opinion, there is a bigger deal made about this than there needs to be. Is applying the safety a good thing? Sure. Is it always necessary? Depends. If I am in that CQB scenario, closing with a target- I could honestly care less about it. But in the covered position scenario- I absolutely care about it.
If you don’t train the task all the time, you won’t perform when it counts. Is that statement correct? Variations of this idea are tossed around when it comes to safeties and reloads. Again, I believe it is because the action is tied to the event at hand, not the end state. Let’s unpack this by looking at another skill that is taught out of context:
Range robots preach that you must do the left, right and between the legs look all the time or you won’t do it in a “gunfight”. Do those same people do their little range ballet after they just fired a 5-10 round string while zeroing in the prone? Nope. But, wait- if they don’t look up, down and twirl after firing a zeroing group, how can they possibly perform in the real world? The answer here is that we layer our approach to training. We start by isolating tasks, by focusing on as few factors as possible to perfect them in as an uncomplicated manner as possible. We then layer on more tasks and factors, IN CONTEXT. This is very important. If I’m layering on scanning techniques, then I do it during multiple target. THE TASK MUST BELONG TO THE CONTEXT AND IT MUST DRIVE US TO THE ENDSTATE.
So how does this relate to applying the safety to reloads? The answer is that the re-application of safety really has nothing to do with the reload. The end state of the reload is to get bullets back in the gun. Does the safety aid this effort? No. The re-application of the safety is tied to the action of MOVE. When we train barricade drills to simulate use of cover, we of course train to not DISENGAGE the safety until our sights are on a target, but we do not RE-ENGAGE the safety until we are ready to move back into cover (or when we have cleared our sector and the engagement is complete). The application of the safety is part of the step-by-step drill while moving on the barricade. Another example is Individual Movement Techniques (IMT). In addition to the standard barrier steps, we must perform a weapons status check before moving to the next position. This includes checking the safety, as well as that the weapon is ready to fire before I run to the next location.
Does this viewpoint make sense? The general guidance of safety application being: you intend to re-engage the target, the weapon is kept oriented towards the target, AND you can control the weapon. These are guidelines that conform to the end state. As you could see in the hypothetical situations, they make sense to the required end state. I’m a firm advocate of repetitious exercises to build proficiency in tasks, I just feel that tasks need to be associated with the proper context and end state to aid in the tactical problem solving
The Training Process
I think one of the other reasons people get so emotional about flat range drills, is that is all they do. When many think about training they picture themselves at a 25yd flat range, standing in front of a target. They never progress past that. So, the argument that we need to drill safety manipulation during malfunctions and reloads because we don’t want people moving around others with the weapon off safe doesn’t really fit. To train people not to bound around others with the weapon off safe- we need to train them to put the weapon on safe before moving. It is that simple. Of course, if we never attend courses where we move, then this becomes a little difficult….
Let me use Unit training for example: when I went through OTC, no instructor cared if your weapon was on safe or not when you were doing flat range drills and conducting a reload or malfunction clearance. They did care that your muzzle was oriented safely, that your finger was not on the trigger and that you met the time and accuracy standard for the drill. Why is that? Because it wasn’t important in that context and you weren’t creating an unsafe situation. On the other hand, if you were being trained on barrier drills and you were pulling the rifle back behind cover with the weapon off safe- they did care. Why? Because it was important in the context and you were creating an unsafe situation. Another example is CQB: after entering a room, your weapon stays on fire after identifying and engaging the first threat and does not go back on safe until you reach your point of domination and have re-cleared your sector- at which point, your weapon’s safety is engaged. This is because you train to take specific actions based on the context you are performing. We train guys during multiple target engagements to leave the safety off while moving from target to target and mitigate risk by removing our finger from the trigger well if there is a non-threat in our path. We train guys to engage the safety before pulling into cover. We train guys to engage the safety after re-clearing our sector in a room. We train guys to check their safety before bounding to the next position. We train the skill to the context.
“But, that was Special Operations, not LE, civilian, prepper, insert your own reality here, etc relevant training”- you might say. Sure it is. What I’m driving at here- is not to say that one method is right or wrong. What I am pointing out is that we should be unemotional and analytical with our training process. We should always be critical of our process, but it is absolutely imperative that we analyze our techniques AS THEY APPLY TO THE ENDSTATE. If something doesn’t make sense, it may be because we are trying to force a general rule. Sometimes general rules stand up when we look at them in context, but sometimes they don’t. If a certain task doesn’t make sense or doesn’t aid us while performing a core task, but the it does if we apply the core task in a different context- then perhaps the modification of that task should be taught during context specific training.
Just something to think about. Many of us have different methods. It is ok to be different. Question your reality, be critical of your training process and application, continue to evolve, but when in question- of course always err on the side of safety.
